[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A.I.

> > Important?  Nah.  Just more sentimental hoo-hah
> > from Spielberg.
>
> You jest, of course.  :)  I mean, Kubrick's
> fingerprints are all over that film,

His fingerprints, yes.  His courage, no.

One of the hallmarks of Kubrick's work is his propensity for taking common
situations and turning them into something disturbing (think "The Shining"
or "Lolita"), and, conversely, to take creepy situations and turn them into
something beautiful - and thereby all the more disturbing (think "A
Clockwork Orange" or "Eyes Wide Shut").  Both of these effects are often
achieved by Kubrick's determination to explore the situation, visually, from
oblique angles and unconventional editing techniques (witness the brilliant
scene in "The Shining" when Jack stalks his wife up the staircase, or, in
the same film, when Jack is talking to his wife through the locked pantry
door).  He refuses to blink when he is exploring these situations, and
that's part of their power.

He also has a flair for shocking, haunting images that smolder in one's
memory - the opening scene of "A Clockwork Orange", or Vincent D'Onofrio's
grimacing glare in "Full Metal Jacket", or Tom Cruise's "trial" at the
masquerade orgy in "Eyes Wide Shut".

Finally, Kubrick does not allow emotions are not permitted to muddle the
issue, to color the idea, or cue the viewer.  The ideas or situations are
presented more or less at face value, and the implications are left up to
the viewer.

All three of things are qualities that are missing from "A.I.", and, perhaps
not so curiously, are qualities that Steven Spielberg has never exhibited.
That's not to discredit Spielberg; he's a fine filmmaker in his own right
(though he often thwarts his best films with a maudlin sensibility).  But
this is /definitely/ a Spielberg film.

> and if
> it does have a superficial Spielbergian sentimentality,
> the underlying story is still a very bleak and
> depressing one.

It's poignant, sure, but what's so bleak about it?

> But Moses supposes erroneously!  _Singin' in the
> Rain_ fan, are ya?  :)

What, the best musical ever made? But of course.  :)

> > Anyway, it seemed to me that this story had already
> > been told - way back in 1982.  It was called "Blade
> > Runner," and it was a much more interesting and effective
> > film.  :)
>
> Maybe when Ridley Scott releases his *next* version of
> the film (and there *is* another one coming -- that
> "director's cut" in the early '90s was apparently not
> quite what the advertising claimed it was), I will finally
> begin to see what all the fuss is about.  :)

The film simply *works*.  Its haunting vision of the future has become the
de facto standard for sci-fi films (so much so that Lucas apparently felt
compelled to give it a nod in AOTC).  The performances are both subtle and
sublime, the dialogue subdued.  Scott's direction is simple and unintrusive,
allowing the contemplative and melancholy mood to saturate the film. The
script touches on so many issues that are close to my heart: God's
responsibility to man (if any), man's responsibility to his Creator and his
creations, the substance of love, the substance of identity and being, the
fear and mistrust of technology; the whole bloody meaning of life, that's
all.  :)

Come to think of it, "Blade Runner" is more like a Kubrick film than "A.I."
<g>

-

s&th
hooligan at apostate_com

"If you want to write fiction, the best thing
you can do is take two aspirins, lie down in
a dark room, and wait for the feeling to pass.
If it persists, you probably ought to write
a novel."
                         - Lawrence Block


---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: References: